Objective To compare the clinical effect on acute cerebral infarction between ultra-selective intraarterial thrombolysis and intravenous thrombolysis. Methods From August 2013 to March 2014 in Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College,a total of 120 patients with acute cerebral infarction were selected,and they were divided into A group and B group according to random number table,each of 60 cases. Patients of A group were treated by ultra -selective intraarterial thrombolysis,while patients of B group were treated by intravenous thrombolysis. Clinical effect,NIHSS score before treatment and after 2 hours,12 hours,24 hours,3 days,7 days,15 days,30 days of treatment,coagulation indicators( including TT, PT and FIB ) before treatment and after 6 hours,3 days,7 days of treatment were compared between the two groups, and incidence of complications was observed. Results No statistically significant differences of clinical effect was found between the two groups(u=0. 064,P >0. 05). No statistically significant differences of NIHSS score was found between the two groups before treatment or after 15 days,30 days of treatment(P<0. 05);after 2 hours,12 hours,24 hours,3 days,7 days of treatment,NIHSS score of A group was statistically significantly lower than that of B group, respectively. No statistically significant differences of TT,PT or FIB was found between the two groups before treatment(P>0. 05);TT and PT of A group were statistically significantly longer than those of B group after 6 hours,3 days,7 days of treatment,and FIB of A group was statistically significantly higher than that of B group after 6 hours,3 days of treatment,respectively(P <0. 05),but no statistically significant differences of FIB was found between the two groups after 7 days of treatment(P>0. 05). The incidence of complications of A group was 6. 17%, was statistically significantly lower than that of B group of 25. 00%( P <0. 05 ). Conclusion Ultra - selective intraarterial thrombolysis has similar clinical effect in treating acute cerebral infarction with intravenous thrombolysis,but its working time is shorter,and the incidence of complications was less.%目的：比较超选择性动脉溶栓与静脉溶栓治疗急性脑梗死的临床效果。方法选取滨州医学院烟台附属医院2013年8月—2014年3月收治的急性脑梗死患者120例，按照随机数字表法分为动脉溶栓组和静脉溶栓组，每组60例。动脉溶栓组患者给予超选择性动脉溶栓治疗，静脉溶栓组患者给予静脉溶栓治疗。比较两组患者临床效果，溶栓前及溶栓后2 h、12 h、24 h、3 d、7 d、15 d、30 d美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表（ NIHSS）评分，溶栓前及溶栓后6 h、3 d、7 d凝血指标〔凝血酶时间（ TT）、凝血酶原时间（ PT）、纤维蛋白原（ FIB）〕，观察并发症发生情况。结果两组患者临床效果比较，差异无统计学意义（ u =0.064，P >0.05）。两组患者溶栓前及溶栓后15 d、30 d NIHSS评分比较，差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）；动脉溶栓组患者溶栓后2 h、12 h、24 h、3 d、7 d NIHSS评分均低于静脉溶栓组（P<0.05）。溶栓前两组患者TT、PT及FIB水平比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；动脉溶栓组患者溶栓后6 h、3 d、7 d TT、PT长于静脉溶栓组，溶栓后6 h、3 d FIB水平高于对照组（P<0.05）；溶栓后7 d两组患者FIB水平比较，差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。动脉溶栓组并发症发生率为6.17%，低于静脉溶栓组的25.00%（P<0.05）。结论超选择性动脉溶栓与静脉溶栓治疗急性脑梗死的临床效果相当，但超选择性动脉溶栓治疗起效时间短，且并发症少。
展开▼
